This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 24th, 2013 at 9:22 pm and is filed under Humor, NFL, Sports.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

160 Responses to “Ray Lewis: No weapon formed against us shall prosper!” ( jump to bottom )

True, various French regimes have sabotaged U.S. interests on multiple occasions, but the Mali request seems tailor-made for the Obama Doctrine of “Leading from Behind.” Instead, Mr. Obama is threatening to undermine the entire operation; without in-flight refueling, it will be impossible for France to sustain the current pace of air and ground operations, giving the rebels a chance to re-group and launch new offensives.

@ heysoos:
@ brookly red:
@ 1389AD:
Wait wait wait!
WTF?
I mean WTF!!!???
How did we go from Ray Lewis to O is a muzz to tanks and jets to cookies to gladiator movies to taking a bullet from the Russians?
Holy crap this is a cloosterfook.

Am I the only one who is sick of Ray Lewis taking bible verses out of context? Sorry but “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” does not mean “the other team will not score more points that the ravens

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) said that experts would suggest traditional rifles are better for self defense and easier for women to use than assault weapons Thursday evening on CNN:

PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?

CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.

Another thing I find amusing about McCarthy’s ignorant comments is the fact that on the same day she said that women can’t effectively use an AR-15, the administration made the announcement that they were going to let women into combat arms specialties.

the entirely tepid response from the GOP regarding this weeks grab, leads one to think that Boehner is in bed with Reid…I’ll make sure it doesn’t pass the Senate if you shut the fuck up…not the leadership I want

@ lobo91:
Do you have any idea what gender neutral means? That is part of the debate. If it means I can get into military service by doing 20 pushups on my knees then at 55 I might be able to lead a squad of fierce florists.

@ song_and_dance_man:
As long as they don’t change the standards, as far as I’m concerned, they can let women waste their time trying to become infantry officers all they want. They’ll never make it, though.

CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.

Wow, that’s ignorant. I had no idea an AR-15 is not a rifle. Guess I wasn’t using a rifle when I was shooting my now lost SR556 to shoot prairie dogs at 200+ yards. I had no idea. As far as home defense, a short carbine is way better than a traditional rifle. Kind of nice when the media is on your side; you can just make crap up and not be challenged.

They’re probably more likely to be captured than someone in a combat unit would be, honestly.

We’ve rarely taken significant losses in straight-up combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, really. The vast majority of our casualties have come from either roadside bombs blowing up vehicles or from rocket/mortar attacks on bases.

When they try to attack one of our units in a dismounted fight, it usually results in somewhere between a 10-1 and a 100-1 casualty ratio in our favor.

And that is the key. Those women who want to battle elbow to elbow with the men must have the strength to carry a wounded fellow soldier to safety.

Good luck with that.

Same thing goes for tank crews. Everyone thinks a tank is some sort of push-button video game combat. Everything on a tank is heavy as hell. That ammo doesn’t magically appear in the racks inside the turret, either. And you can’t call OnStar when your track breaks.

Tanker uniforms these days have extraction straps built into the back, so you can pull a wounded crew member out if the tank is hit. There are no escape hatches in the belly anymore. You have to grab that strap and pull them straight up through the hatch in the turret top.

@ AZfederalist:
They wish it read like this.
A well regulated Sporting Group, being necessary to the security of free hunting grounds, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [unless the arms kill other than sport].

@ AZfederalist:
They wish it read like this.
A well regulated Sporting Group, being necessary to the security of free hunting grounds, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [unless the arms kill other than sport].

Next they’ll want the right to arm bears.

//fairness

At Glockmeister, in Mesa AZ they sell a T-Shirt with the California Flag on it, but the bear is missing his front two limbs…across the top it says “California Republic” and below “No right to bear arms”.

Another thing I find amusing about McCarthy’s ignorant comments is the fact that on the same day she said that women can’t effectively use an AR-15, the administration made the announcement that they were going to let women into combat arms specialties.

Same thing goes for tank crews. Everyone thinks a tank is some sort of push-button video game combat. Everything on a tank is heavy as hell. That ammo doesn’t magically appear in the racks inside the turret, either. And you can’t call OnStar when your track breaks.

Another reason against it I think is that women in combat units would be even more vulnerable to sexual abuse by their own than they would in military situations where they are not in such close quarters over long periods of time.

Another thing I find amusing about McCarthy’s ignorant comments is the fact that on the same day she said that women can’t effectively use an AR-15, the administration made the announcement that they were going to let women into combat arms specialties.

M1 Garrands. According to dub@$$, the women can defend themselves better with rifles than those military style weapons.

Women are just as likely to kill each other in their own Battalion first and forget about about the enemy lurking outside.

Fighting over the hunk in the next foxhole eh?

Seriously now. I have no idea just how many women really want to engage in combat on the ground level, but I have heard some say it has to do with the lack of promotion for women in the forces. I can see that. There would be little chance of any woman aspiring to the rank of General or even Colonel without a record of hard battle on the line.

The whole thing smacks of PC and it will hurt the military and in no way helps. It is just another way for Leftist dogma to infiltrate the last bastion of heretofore slightly unmolested American tradition.

I have no idea just how many women really want to engage in combat on the ground level, but I have heard some say it has to do with the lack of promotion for women in the forces. I can see that. There would be little chance of any woman aspiring to the rank of General or even Colonel without a record of hard battle on the line.

That’s all it’s about. They want to be able to make some woman Chief of Staff of the Army, and that post is always filled by a combat arms officer.

Ho-hum. Another Friday. “SNAFU”, so far as I can tell so far. Made what is becoming a daily check of vendors this morning (on the off chance I might catch them with supplies momentarily on hand.) Ammo not available? Check. Magazines not available? Check.

When I execute my escape plan from here in a week, I am going to have to check my local retailers. I hold out little hope for that effort, but it has to be done, I suppose.

@ 1389AD:
I don’t post here much but I think we should take up a collection to send 1389 to Russia forthwith so that she may have her wish. I feel that I must speak out about her and other’s secessionist beliefs. My family didn’t fight in the Revolution and didn’t help to create this great nation in order to have some some vile trash wish for its’ destruction. You claim to be against Muslim terrorism as am I but wishing for the destruction/breakup of the US plays right into their hands as well as Obama’s hands. You claim to be a Serb so go there. I propose that the Blogmocracy take up a collection to send 1389, Czech Rebel and the rest of 1389 blog to Antarctica which needs people. Unfortunately, most of its people are research scientists, and that crew wouldn’t qualify. America has had bad Presidents before and does again but we will get through this as we always have. Also, if a breakup does occur, what makes you think the new leader will be better? Remember, the secessionists were willing to break the law to break off from th US in the first place, so what makes you think they would embrace the rule of law once they gain power? They would have no moral authority. And what about multiple secessions? Secession sucks and is wrong. Our ancestors fought for unity and they deserve better than this treasonous claptrap. I wonder how many of those advocating secession actually got off their butts and voted last year?

Well actually, seccionists in the late War of Northern Agression didn’t break any law by secceeding, nor would any do so today. There’s no law against it. But the folks you are railing against hold that seccession would be peaceful. I assume they’re color-blind and can’t tell red from blue on a voting map from the last election – that’s the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. Don’t know for certain, but I strongly suspect Russia and Serbia don’t exactly roll out the red carpet for people with no money who don’t speak the langauge and who have outdated technical skills. I could be wrong on that, but that’s my guess.

Hear! Hear! I publicly washed my hands of her because of a history perniciously impolitic remarks, but the statement to which you are referring, almost made me break my embargo. The words “take a bullet”, context be damned, have a specific value and further confirm my distaste for her and her toxic views.